If you want the real skinny on the schmidt decision you should read the judge's decision. Reality is that he did sell outside of anything nearing the definition of informed consumer choice or the cow share system which allowed the prosecution to prove PUBLIC SALE vs. PRIVATE AGREEMENT.
But along with that, statements made in the document do trample our rights and give one a good idea of how the system thinks. They rule and we serve, or to put it a different way, imposed regulation trumps the constitution.
Really there were two issues at play in this case. One was the basic regulation itself and the second was our constitutional rights.
Sorry don't need a government telling me what to eat, drink, or take. Or how to live. I just want them to do what they are constitutionally deemed to do. Protect our border.
lol, my toes a pretty tough. Dont worry bout me. It's all good.
Hubby is sometimes worried. I dont keep many friends because of my blunt personality (I dont sugar coat anyting cept donuts). So when one of my few friends and I debate, it gets rather heated. For example, a friend and I were disagreeing on capital punishment. I said "you stupid idiot! how can you honestly believe THAT? wake up already! oh yeah, you wanna a cup of coffee?" She said yes and then proceeded to tell me what a heartless #$tch I was. Poor hubby gets so confused.
Seriously, my toes are huge and my skin is thick. lol
What I just can't stomach is that in current proposed systems they are trying to class things like a C.S.A. as a retail food establishment. How is it that people getting together to grow some food becomes a retail venture?
The government always wants their piece of the pie no matter how small. The more excuses they can find to "regulate" things the more they can charge "fees" for that regulation.